Fourth International, May 1948

From the Arsenal of Marxism

Self-Determination for the American Negroes

In April 1939 three discussions were held on the Negro
question between Leon Trotsky and various comrades, on the basis
of a document Preliminary Notes on the Negro Question
submitted by Comrade George. The document and the discussion
were published in an internal bulletin of the Socialist Workers
Party. We reproduce here the text of the April 4, 1939 discussion
with a few minor omissions.(Stenographer’s note:
Rough draft uncorrected by participants.)

Trotsky: Comrade George proposes that we discuss the Negro
question in three parts, the first to be devoted to the programmatic
question of self-determination for the Negroes.

George: (There was introduced some statistical material
which was not included in the report.) The basic proposals for the
Negro question have already been distributed and here it is only
necessary to deal with the question of self-determination. No one
denies the Negroes’ right to self-determination. It is a
question of whether we should advocate it. In Africa and in the West
Indies we advocate self-determination because a large majority of the
people want it. In Africa the great masses of the people look upon
self-determination as a restoration of their independence. In the
West Indies, where we have a population similar in origin to the
Negroes in America, there has been developing a national sentiment.
The Negroes are a majority; Already we hear ideas, among the more
advanced, of a West Indian nation and it is highly probable that,
even let us suppose that the Negroes were offered full and free
rights as citizens of the British Empire, they would probably oppose
it and wish to be absolutely free and independent ... It is
progressive. It is a step in the right direction. We weaken the
enemy. It puts the workers in a position to make great progress
toward Socialism.

In America the situation is different. The Negro desperately wants
to be an American citizen. He says, “I have been here from the
beginning; I did all the work here in the early days. Jews, Poles,
Italians, Swedes and others come here and have all the privileges.
You say that some of the Germans are spies. I will never spy. I have
nobody for whom to spy. And yet you exclude me from the army and from
the rights of citizenship.”

In Poland and Catalonia there is a tradition of language,
literature and history to add to the economic and political
oppression and to help weld the population in its progressive demand
for self-determination. In America it is not so. Let us look at
certain historic events in the development of the Negro in America.

Garvey raised the slogan “Back to Africa,” but the
Negroes who followed him did not believe for the most part that they
were really going back to Africa. We know that those in the West
Indies who were following him had not the slightest intention of
going back to Africa, but they were glad to follow a militant
leadership. And there is the case of the black woman who was pushed
by a white woman in a street car and said to her, “You wait
until Marcus gets into power and all you people will be treated in
the way you deserve.” Obviously she was not thinking of Africa.

There was however this concentration on the Negroes’
problems simply because the white workers in 1918 [?] were not
developed. There was no political organization of any power catling
upon the blacks and the whites to unite. The (Negroes were just back
from the war – militant and having no offer of assistance,
naturally concentrated on their own particular affairs.

In addition, however, we should note that in Chicago, where a race
riot took place, the riot was deliberately provoked by the employers.
Some time before it actually broke out, the black and white
meatpackers had struck and had paraded through the Negro quarter in
Chicago with the black population cheering the whites in the same way
that they cheered the black. For the capitalists this was a very
dangerous thing and they set themselves to creating race friction. At
one stage, motor cars, with white people in them, sped through the
Negro quarter shooting at all whom they saw. The capitalist press
played up the differences and thus set the stage and initiated the
riots that took place for dividing the population and driving the
Negro back upon himself.

During the period of the crisis there was a rebirth of these
nationalist movements. There was a movement toward the 49th state and
the movement concentrated around Liberia was developing. These
movements assumed fairly large proportions up to at least 1934.

Then in 1936 came the organization of the CIO. John L. Lewis
appointed a special Negro department. The New Deal made gestures to
the Negroes. Blacks and whites fought together in various struggles.
These nationalist movements have tended to disappear as the Negro saw
the opportunity to fight with the organized workers and to gain
something.

The danger of our advocating and injecting a policy of
self-determination is that it is the surest way to divide and confuse
the workers in the South. The white workers have centuries of
prejudice to overcome, but at the present time many of them are
working with the Negroes in the Southern Sharecroppers’ Union
and with the rise of the struggle there is every possibility that
they will be able to overcome their agelong prejudices. But for us to
propose that the Negro have this black state for himself is asking
too much from the white workers, especially when the Negro himself is
not making the same demand. The slogans of “abolition of
debts,” “confiscation of large properties,’’
etc., are quite sufficient to lead them both to fight together and on
the basis of economic struggle to make a united fight for the
abolition of social discrimination.

I therefore propose concretely: (1) That we are for the right of
self-determination. (2) If some demand should arise among the Negroes
for the right of self-determination we should support it. (3) We do
not go out of bur way to raise this slogan and place an unnecessary
barrier between ourselves and socialism. (4) An investigation should
be made into these movements; the one led by Garvey, the movement for
the 49th state, the movement centering around Liberia. Find out what
groups of the population supported them and on this basis come to
some opinion as to how far there is any demand among the Negroes for
self-determination.

Carlos: It seems to me that the problem can be divided into
a number ‘of different phases:

On the question of self-determination, I think it is clear that
while we are for self-determination, even to the point of
independence, it does not necessarily mean that we favor
independence. What we are in favor of is that in a certain case, in a
certain locality, they have the right to decide for themselves
whether or not they should be independent or what particular
governmental arrangements they should have with the majority of the
country.

On the question of self-determination being necessarily
reactionary – I believe that is a little far-fetched.
Self-determination for various nations and groups is not opposed to a
future socialist world. I think the question was handled in a polemic
between Lenin and Piatakov from the point of view of Russia –
of self-determination for the various peoples of Russia while still
building a united country. There is not necessarily a contradiction
between the two. The socialist society will not be built upon
subjugated people, but from a free people. The reactionary or
progressive character of self-determination is determined by whether
or not it will advance the social revolution. That is the
criterion.

As to the point which was made, that we should not advocate a
thing if the masses do not want it, that is not correct. We do not
advocate things just because the masses want them. The basic question
of socialism would come under that category. In the United States
only a small percentage of the people want socialism, but still we
advocate it. They may want war, but we oppose it. The questions we
have to solve are as follows: Will it help in the destruction of
American imperialism? If such a movement arises, will the people want
it as the situation develops?

I take it that these nationalist movements of which you speak were
carried on for years and the struggle was carried on by a handful of
people in each case, but in the moment of social crisis the masses
rallied to such movements. The same can possibly happen in connection
with self-determination of the Negroes.

It seems to me that the so-called “black belt” is a
super-exploited section of the American economy. It has all the
characteristics of a subjugated section of an empire. It has all the
extreme poverty and political inequality. It has the same financial
structure – Wall Street exploits the petty-bourgeois elements
and in turn the poor workers. It represents simply a field for
investment and a source of profits. It has the characteristics of
part of a colonial empire. It is also essentially a regional matter,
for the whites have also been forced to feel a reaction against
finance capital.

It would also be interesting to study the possible future
development of the Negro question. We saw that when the Negroes were
brought to the South they Stayed there for many decades. When the war
came, many emigrated to the North and there formed a part of the’
proletariat. That tendency can no longer operate. Capitalism is no
longer expanding as it was before. As a matter of fact, during the
depression many of them went back to the farms. It is possible that
instead of a tendency to emigrate, there will now be a tendency for
the Negro to stay in the South.

And there are other factors: The question of the cotton-picking
machine which means that the workers will be thrown out of work by
the thousands.

To get back to the question of self-determination. There is the
possibility that in the midst of the social crisis the manifestation
of radicalism takes a double phase: Along with the struggle for
economic and social equality, there

may be found the demand for the control of their own state. Even
in Russia, when the Bolsheviks came to power, the Polish people were
not satisfied that this would mean the end of oppression for them.
They demanded the right to control their own destiny in their own
way. Such a development is possible in the South.

The other questions are important, but I do not think they are
basic – that a nation must have its own language, culture and
tradition. To a certain extent they have been developing a culture of
their own. In any public library can be found books – fiction,
anthologies, etc. – expressing a new racial feeling.

Now from the point of view of the United States, the withdrawal of
the “black belt” means the weakening of American
imperialism by the withdrawal of a big field of investment. That is a
blow in favor of the American working class:

It seems to me that self-determination is not opposed to the
struggle for social and political and economic equality. In the North
such a struggle is immediate and the need is acute. In the North the
slogan for economic and political equality is an agitational slogan –
an immediate question. Prom the practical angle, no one suggests that
we raise the slogan of self-determination as an agitational one, but
as a programmatic one which may become agitational in the future.

There is another factor which might be called the psychological
one. If the Negroes think that this is an attempt to segregate them,
then it would be best to withhold the slogan until they are convinced
that this is not the case.

Trotsky: I do not quite understand whether Comrade George
proposes to eliminate the slogan of self-determination for the
Negroes from our program, or is it that we do not say that we are
ready to do everything possible for the self-determination of the
Negroes if they want it themselves. It is a question for the party as
a whole, if we eliminate it or not. We are ready to help them if they
want it. As a party we can remain absolutely neutral on this. We
cannot say it will be reactionary. It is not reactionary. We cannot
tell them to set up a state because that will weaken imperialism and
so will be good for us, the white workers. That would be against
internationalism itself. We cannot say to them, “Stay here,
even at the price of economic progress.” We can say, “It
is for you to decide. If you wish to take a part of the country, it
is all right, but we do not wish to make the decision for you.”

I believe that the differences between the West Indies, Catalonia,
Poland and the situation of the Negroes in the States are not so
decisive. Rosa Luxemburg was against self-determination for Poland.
She felt that it was reactionary and fantastic, as fantastic as
demanding the right to fly. It shows that she did not possess the
necessary historic imagination in this case. The landlords and
representatives of the Polish ruling class were also opposed to
self-determination, for their own reasons.

Comrade George used three verbs: “support,”
“advocate,” and “inject” the idea of
self-determination. I do not propose for the party to advocate, I do
not propose to inject, but only to proclaim our obligation to support
the struggle for self-determination if the Negroes themselves want
it. It is not a question of our Negro comrades. It is a question of
13 or 14 million Negroes. The majority of them are very backward.
They are not very clear as to what they wish now and we must give
them a credit for the future. They will decide then.

What you said about the Garvey movement is interesting – but
it proves that we must be cautious and broad and not base ourselves
upon the status quo. The black woman who said to the white
woman, “Wait until Marcus is in power. We will know how to
treat you then,” was simply expressing her desire for her own
state. The American Negroes gathered under the banner of the “Back
to Africa” movement because it seemed a possible fulfillment of
their wish for their own home. They did not want actually to go to
Africa. It was the expression of a mystic desire for a home in which
they would be free of the domination of the whites, in which they
themselves could control their own fate. That also was a wish for
self-determination. It was once expressed by some in a religious form
and now it takes the form of a dream of an independent state. Here in
the United States the whites are so powerful, so cruel and so rich
that the poor Negro sharecropper does not dare to say, even to
himself, that he will take a part of this country for himself. Garvey
spoke in glowing terms, that it was beautiful and that here all would
be wonderful. Any psychoanalyst will say that the real content of
this dream was to have their own home. It is not an argument in favor
of injecting the idea. It is only an argument by which we can foresee
the possibility of their giving their dream a more realistic form.

Under the condition that Japan invades the United States and the
Negroes are called upon to fight – they may come to feel
themselves threatened first from one side and then from the other,
and finally awakened, may say, “We have nothing to do with
either of you. We will have our own state.”

But the black state could enter into a federation. If the American
Negroes succeeded in creating their own state, I am sure that after a
few years of the satisfaction and pride of independence, they would
feel the need of entering into a federation. Even if Catalonia, which
is a very industrialized and highly developed province, had realized
its independence, it would have been just a step to federation.

The Jews in Germany and Austria wanted nothing more than to be the
best German chauvinists. The most miserable of all was the Social
Democrat, Austerlitz, the editor of the Arbeiterzeitung. But
now, with the turn of events, Hitler does not permit them to be
German chauvinists. Now many of them have become Zionists and are
Palestinian nationalists and anti-German. I saw a disgusting picture
recently of a Jewish actor, arriving in America, bending down to kiss
the soil of the United States. Then they will get a few blows from
the fascist fists in the United States and they will go to kiss the
soil of Palestine.

There is another alternative to the successful revolutionary one.
It is possible that fascism will come to power with its racial
delirium and oppression and the reaction of the Negro will be toward
racial independence. Fascism in the United States will be directed
against the Jews and the Negroes, but against the Negroes
particularly, and in a most terrible manner. A “privileged”
condition will be created for the American white workers on the backs
of the Negroes. The Negroes have done everything possible to become
an integral part of the United States, in a psychological as well as
a political sense. We must foresee that their reaction will show its
power during the revolution. They will enter with a great distrust of
the whites. We must remain neutral in the matter and hold the door
open for both possibilities and promise our full support if they wish
to create their own independent state.

So far as I am informed, it seems to me that the CP’s
attitude of making an imperative slogan of it was false. It was a
case of the whites saying to the Negroes, “You must create a
ghetto for yourselves.” It is tactless and false and can only
serve to repulse the Negroes. Their only interpretation can be that
the whites want to be separated from them. Our Negro comrades of
course have the right to participate more intimately in such
developments. Our Negro comrades can say, “The Fourth
International says that if it is our wish to be independent, it will
help us in every way possible, but that the choice is ours. However,
I, as a Negro member of the Fourth, hold a view that we must remain
in the same state as the whites,” and so on. He can participate
in the formation of the political and racial ideology of the Negroes.

George: I am very glad that we have had this discussion,
because I agree with you entirely. It seems to be the idea in America
that we should advocate it as the CP has done. You seem to think that
there is a greater possibility of the Negroes’ wanting
self-determination than I think is probable. But we have a hundred
percent agreement on the idea which you have put forward that we
should be neutral in the development.

Trotsky: It is the word “reactionary” that
bothered me.

George: Let me quote from the document: “If he wanted
self-determination, then however reactionary it might be in every
other respect, it would be the business of the revolutionary party to
raise that slogan.” I consider the idea of separating as a step
backward so far as a socialist society is concerned. If the white
workers extend a hand to the Negro, he will not want
self-determination.

Trotsky: It is too abstract, because the realization of
this slogan can be reached only as the 13 or 14 million Negroes feel
that the domination by the whites is terminated. To fight for the
possibility of realizing an independent state is a sign of great
moral and political awakening. It would be a tremendous revolutionary
step. This ascendancy would immediately have the best economic
consequences.

Carlos: I think that an analogy could be made in connection
with the collectives and the distribution of large estates. One might
consider the breaking up of large estates into small plots as reactionary, but it is not
necessarily so. But this question is up to the peasants whether they
want to operate the estates collectively or individually. We advise
the peasants, but we do not force them – it is up to them. Some
would say that the breaking up of the large estates into small plots
would be economically reactionary, but that is not so.

Trotsky: This was also the position of Rosa Luxemburg. She
maintained that self-determination would be as reactionary as the
breaking up of the large estates.

Carlos: The question of self-determination is also tied up
with the question of land and must be looked upon not only in its
political, but also in its economic manifestations.